Short Reads

Buckle up: the ACM is racing ahead with speedy solutions and more fines

Buckle up: the ACM is racing ahead with speedy solutions and more fin

Buckle up: the ACM is racing ahead with speedy solutions and more fines

07.03.2019 NL law

The Dutch competition watchdog ACM will bite faster and fiercer, according to its new chairman Martijn Snoep. The ACM plans to shorten the length of its investigations by deciding on their merits sooner. This will free up time and capacity to deal with more cases.

In addition, it intends to impose more fines. Swifter and stricter outcomes can thus be expected, particularly in regard of the ACM's newly designated focus areas. At horizontal level, the ACM will concentrate on purchasing cartels and the coordination of employment conditions, while at vertical level resale price maintenance and online sales restrictions are on the ACM's priority list. Companies are therefore well-advised to double-check whether their agreements with distributors and their contacts with competitors are in line with the ACM's recently published vertical and horizontal guidelines.

The ACM chairman recently confirmed to newspaper NRC and news radio station BNR that the average length of ACM investigations will be shortened and that the number of fines it issues will increase. This marks the end of the ACM's earlier, more 'informal', enforcement style.

It is also marks the end of the ACM's more liberal approach to vertical restraints. The ACM joined the European Commission's battle against (online) vertical restraints in late December 2018 by starting an investigation into vertical price-fixing of consumer goods by manufacturers and online and offline shops. Its recently-published guidelines on vertical agreements, together with its expressly mentioned focus on "illegal (price) agreements between suppliers and distributors and on online sales restrictions", show that it has no intention of easing up the battle yet. The ACM's vertical guidelines provide practical examples of online practices companies currently face, such as online sales restrictions, dual pricing and online advertisement restrictions. They are therefore a welcome addition to the European Commission's guidelines on vertical restraints, which are currently under review. Similarly, the ACM's guidelines on horizontal agreements provide useful guidance for companies when dealing with competitors. The horizontal guidelines' paragraphs on purchasing cartels and coordination of employment conditions are particularly worth reading, now that the ACM has designated these as focus area. The ACM is likely to start looking for non-poaching clauses, wage-fixing and collusion of hiring conditions soon.

Companies should therefore double-check their distribution arrangements and online sales practices for potential antitrust risks. They should also keep their HR staff aware of the potential antitrust risks of certain recruiting and hiring practices.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of March 2019. Another article in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring